A comment has been left on my about page with a must see video which I have linked to below

It is also of significance that Michael O’Sullivan of Ark angel org also located in Canada is a trustee in two trusts with Neil Wells . this just shows how those involved in SPCA ‘s and alike mix and mingle globally.

We wish Mr Wells all the best and would suggest to him that strokes are brought on by stress and he could try admitting his role in suing me using the charitable dollar see How to get your litigation funded through the public purse. He is about to be found out just like David Garrett was exposed Mr Wells will be too. It may just be easier to cough up Neil you may get that stress out of your system. I know it may be hard on you but Honesty is the best policy.

As a lawyer and a spin doctor Wells has been very successful in manipulating the court so that I was denied a hearing on his allegation of defamation. My crime was to question why his “ trust “ did not appear to exist.

I have never been found guilty of defamation, all the statements which he alleged I made have been proved to be true . He managed to skip the bit in the proceedings where a finding of defamation was made against me and I was instead taken to the next step where a cost determination was made on the assumption that I was guilty of defamation.

The defamation act allows for evidence of Misconduct of plaintiff in mitigation of damages . I availed myself of this provision by submitting an affidavit which showed that Mr Wells had frequently contradicted himself and that the truth of his statements was therefore hard to ascertain as two opposing statements both made by him could not both be true . The judge took this evidence as evidence of further defamation and compounded the penalty .

Therefore I was not only denied a hearing, I was punished for speaking the truth and the evidence I put in to show why the cost award should be low was used against me. It was not my fault that Mr wells made so many statements which contradicted each other.

I then looked at three of the largest business groups the Business round table the executive of the chamber of commerce ( which has held tight reigns on their leadership ) see story and those who lobbied for the super city being the Committee for Auckland.

I collated all the business relationships in one spread sheet and looked for connections.

What stood out more than anything is that these four groups of people are not representative of our population. They are rich influential, white and male and they have common memberships to these power hubs.

In my calculations they represent the minority of population and the majority of big business ( if not all ) .

This is the spread sheet which I have compiled from those results shows significant over lap between people companies and the “ Secret seven “ selected to control our assets.

When you click on their names you can see their company connections click on those and you will see how they are connected .

I have only gone to one level of connections in my spreadsheets but as you can see through the connections of GREYMOUTH GAS TARANAKI LIMITED and many other companies similarly named , Masfen is a co director with Robert DUNPHY who is none other than Philippa Dunphy’s husband a connection which these spreadsheets don’t illustrate. There will no doubt be more connections but the are irrelevant if no one cares. Philippa is on the transport committee.. handy for the uses of gas and petroleum.

There is only one candidate warning every one that this is about a corporate takeover That is Penny Bright she is the Claytons vote the vote you give to say yes we agree this is a corporate takeover and we are opposed to it …….. I gave her my vote

You have two choices Vote for her or if you have received this email and have ignored it accept that things will never be the same again

We can only do this if we stand together.

If you are not male, if you are not white or if you do not support corporate coups then give Penny your vote and send a very loud message.. we want the city for the people run by those elected by the people not by committees of pre selected persons who have conflicts of interests and hidden agendas

Please Treat this as the vote for or against the super city.. if you are for the super city and can’t be bothered reading my material vote for whoever you like

If you are against the super city and don’t like the undemocratic manner in which it has been done or you have read my material and say Oh my gosh what is happening is so wrong. Then please vote Like I did just the one tick on the form Vote for Penny Bright .

I am not part of her campaign, this has not been authorised by her this is my recommendation based on real evidence .

Please forward this email to anyone who is yet to vote click on the links have a look at the evidence this is a corporate take over the very people I have mentioned own the news papers the only way we are going to get this out is through email.

The man who calls himself the CEO Neil Wells also wrote and advise on the legislation which give the above powers. This was legislation was written by him subsequent to his business plan for integration of animal welfare officers with council duties of dog and stock control see the document and how to write legislation for your own business plan

At the end of 2009 those who claim to be the current trustees of AWINZ asked to relinquish their approved status, despite this the dog and stock control officers in Waitakere city have continued to hold warrants.

3. In 2006 I questioned why the organisation did not exist on any register.. for this I have been sued for the past four years.

4. A trust deed was supplied in 2006 no further evidence of the trusts existence has ever been produced. We can only speculate as to the truthfulness of this document, it certainly was never seen before 2006 by the official bodies which should have held a copy on file.

5. If you read the deed point 7 a term of office you will note that it states that the term of appointment is 3 years. This means that by 1.3.2003 there were no trustees.

6. Maf entered into an agreement with AWINZ giving no further definition of what AWINZ was on 4 December 2003 . what is the validity of this agreement when the” trustee “ Neil Wells without any further evidence is deemed to have stopped being a trustee 8 months earlier .

a. There is also no evidence that any of the other so called trustees continued and if there were others who these persons are.

b. For all intents and purposes MAF signed and agreement for law enforcement with one person who was trading with a name which sounded impressive.

7. In 2006 three people ( note the trust deed states there will be no less than four trustees ) purporting to be the trustees but not having any evidence that they were took me to court – Wyn Hoadley barrister , Neil Wells Barrister and Graeme Coutts JP.

8. In December of that year these three people sign a deed with Tom Didovich the previous manager animal welfare who had made representation on behalf of two councils to MAF.

9. These are the people who according to MAF have now asked for the approved status to be relinquished .. but apart from sharing the same trading name are they the same as the approved organisation? And what accountability has there been??

I have also been approached by many of the older inspectors who are being pushed out of the job , I have given my time freely and willingly but it appears that Maf sees me as a bit of a villain mainly because their incompetence has cost me so much.

They now refuse to give me the time of day so that they can cover up their incompetence.

I am certain that the docuemtns I have asked for a refused because they simply don’t exist. Maf does not do its work and is thereby allowing corruption in the animal welfare sector to flourish.

Openness and transparency is supposed to be part of our democratic system what is transparent about a system where by people are charged huge sums of money for information relating to accountability issues in the private law enforcement sector.

Several years ago I had to find a liquidator and director of a company called fresh prepared Limited this company has now morphed into Salad Foods ltd

Neither director nor liquidator existed but I was not to know that. But Terry Hay and Lynne Pryor knew and they needed me out of the way

So they sued me for harassment.. it didn’t matter that I had not investigated ,been near or even enquired after Terry Hay they sued me any way ( that’s what rich people do apparently ) Lynne was annoyed because I visited the home address of the director and the factory he claimed to own .

Before we went to court “ Julie” placed an advertisement in the mandarin times , this saw my house besieged with telephone calls and callers.( mandarin times original )

A year or so later I tried to find Julie and rang David Nathan. He was so upset that I had phoned him that he swore an affidavit and had me taken to court again for contempt of court.

The judge said that it was not contempt of court but they were not going to accept that and took it to the high court where I won the right for discovery.

The matter is still live in the court today and in the process I have lost not only $49,000 for my lawyers but it saw the end of my marriage which would have seen its 25th anniversary this month.

I fully believe that everyone needs to be responsible for their actions and that wrongs can be put right with compensation .

I foolishly believed that now that Lynne Pryor has been convicted of fraud and has been banned from managing a company ( yes I know she still is ) that someone may see it fit to withdraw the charges from the court and compensate me for my loss . I ran into Lynne at the supermarket and she did not wish to talk about what is happening to the proceedings .

I will add to this on a daily basis ( if I can) showing the intriguing story behind the persecution of me and the links to the people at Pacific flight catering. The Directors, who they are and the shareholders . I have already done my research and I can promise you that this is going to be an eye opener.

As I do nothing behind any ones back I am advising you are connected in one way or another with this blog . I will endeavour to contact everyone involved so that they all know what is being said about them and their associates on the web. People have a right to know who they are dealing with .

If there is anything inaccurate I do hope that you will let me know and I will correct . everything is well researched and I believe it all to be the truth and factual

02/09/2010

Four years ago I rightfully questioned a situation in Waitakere city where by a public servant was contracting to himself. As a result I was sued to keep me quite .

Just recently I questioned the definition of fraud used by the audit office I was advised that this definition was Fraud – an intentional act by one or more individuals among management, those charged with governance, employees, or third parties, involving the use of deception to obtain an unjust or illegal advantage.emails audit NZ

I have a situation which involves exactly that yet when I raised questions about this matter with the local body concerned I was sued by the council manager who used the charitable funds of the no existent entity which contracted to the local body to silence me. This appears to have been a very effective move because the office of the auditor General has told me they would not touch it because I have been sued.

It appears to me that New Zealand is a breeding ground for fraud because no one can safely question it and the audit services which should protect us from this misuse of public funds and resources do nothing to stop it.

The ombudsmen are likewise useless and every so called public watch dog we have turns a blind eye.

It appears that audit NZ and the office of the auditor general can be selective about what they audit and can turn a blind eye to what is clearly fraud by their own definition. When those charged with public duty fail to perform the propensity for fraud will only increase please look at this clip of a congressman reprimanding government servants for their inaptitude. New Zealand is no different.

I find it ironic that on the audit NZ web site it is stated “It’s our job to help public sector organisations have better financial and non-financial management.” And

By turning a blind eye to the animal welfare institute of New Zealand fiasco are we condoning this type of fraud? And condoning the use of public resources for private pecuniary gain?

Is the office of the auditor general and audit NZ are proving that they are negligent and do not do the work which they are supposed to do. Who will audit the auditors?

And Why don’t we verify anything we are so trusting or is that ignorant? New Zealand is on its way to be the most corrupt country in the world we have a very good strategy to keep us up there in the least corrupt stakes by denial and the placement of many brick walls which are intent to make those who question give up.